BA1/406/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1044 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      22.03.2021                     BA1 No. 406 of 2021

                                     Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Punit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Accused-Ravish Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 283 of 2020, under section 376 IPC and under section 3/ 4 of the POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has falsely been implicated in the offence; he is languishing in jail since 12.12.2020; he has no criminal history and; at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix was major. It is further argued that as per the FIR, accused made physical relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. But, when any person made physical relations with a woman, who is major, on the pretext of the marriage in that situation that offence cannot come within the purview of section 376 IPC. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. & anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 181.

Per contra, learned state counsel opposed for bail.

As per the FIR, the accused made physical relations with the prosecutrix. During investigation, the investigating agency collected the documents to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix and recorded the statement of the Principal Sanjay Singh, Farukhabad, U.P. As per the school certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 08.03.2000. The occurrence took place in the year 2017 as well as in the year 2019. From the perusal of the statement of the Principal, it is clear that at the time of the occurrence, prosecutrix was under the age of 18. Although, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in law point is binding upon the soil of India but in the present matter the above ruling is not applicable because in the present matter the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the occurrence. Hence, no question arises about the consent as envisaged under section 90 of IPC. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she categorically stated that the accused made physical relations with her after giving drugs.

Looking into the gravity of offence, it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.

The bail application is rejected, accordingly.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court for compliance.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 22.03.2021 Parul